Talk:There's... Johnny!

its entirety
I have concerns with both sections of this edit. On the statement that Hulu picked up the rights, that seems redundant detail; by saying that they released it, it can be presumed that they had the right to do so. While we can go into details about when they announced the acquisition in the body text, for the summary in the lead, saying they released it seems sufficient.

And switching that they have released an entire season to having released the entire series shows the presumption of something we do not have stated in the article: that there will be no second season. While I do not find news of a second season, I also do not find sources indicating that there will not be, and at least one point Reiser expressed a hope that Hulu would fund further episodes. Barring such an announcement, we cannot say for certain that they released the entire series. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:01, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Hey Nat. It's worth clarifying that Hulu only acquired the streaming rights to the series. They did not outright purchase the series from NBCUniversal which explains why it was released as a Hulu exclusive and not a Hulu original. Hulu never picked up the series in the same way that say Netflix has "rescued" a show like Lucifer and subsequently ordered another season. Hulu did something similar with The Mindy Project. Rather, There's...Johnny! was already competely filmed, edited, and ready for air by the time Hulu merely picked up the rights to stream it on their service for a set period of time. Notice during the end credits that the copyright does not belong to Hulu, as it does with all other series they own and have ability to renew, but rather it is still credited to Seeso and NBCUniversal. In this case, I do not find the text to include extraneous detail but rather clarifies the unique situation the series was/is in between Seeso/NBCUniversal/Hulu. – BoogerD (talk) 17:19, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I can't recall any other TV article where they thought it was lead-worthy to note that the broadcaster did not have ownership, and in the vast tradition of television, the networks owning many of the copyrights to the fiction shows they broadcast is a recent and not complete development. The end credits of the final season of The Mindy Project do not show that Hulu owns the copyright, despite that being a "Hulu Original" by then; the copyright is owned by Open 4 Business LLC, which is an NBCUniversal company, and the Hulu credit is just a "distributed by" one. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:27, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Your point is valid and noted. A great example of what you are saying would be how NBCUniversal was producing Brooklyn 99 even though it aired on Fox (though now it will come home to NBC). I agree that it is super common for one network/company to produce a series and sell it another network/service. However, the situation with There's...Johnny! is rather unique as most streaming services only first run series that they themselves ordered/produced. I think that's notable in this situation. Additionally, as it specifically relates to Hulu, I think the detail in the lead helps to further clarify Hulu's position as original network in the infobox. Lastly, the sentence as it is now only added an extra eight words. It doesn't make the sentence incorrect in anyway; just more detailed. I don't know, I guess that's just my thoughts and opinion on the matter. BTW, I'm going out to see movie within the hour so if further messages are posted I will most likely not see/respond to them until much later today. – BoogerD (talk) 21:11, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you've oversimplified what goes on in the streaming world, which has more variables than you suggest. For example, American Gods was ordered by Starz from Freemantle Media NA, but first-runs everywhere except the US on Amazon Prime.
 * I hope you enjoyed your movie! --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:41, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * In the American Gods situation you brought up, there is a key difference between Starz and Amazon Prime. Starz bought the rights to the series, put it into development, and eventually gave it a series order. They are directly responsible for the series both in its production in a financial sense (in that it was their money that was put up to make it). All Amazon Prime did was acquire the distribution rights to the series internationally. They had no hand in its creation or production nor any real say in the series in any substantial way. I think that's a pretty important distinction.
 * I did enjoy the movie actually. I went to go see 2001: A Space Odyssey in IMAX. It was pretty amazing to see it on the big screen for the first time after watching it at home. – BoogerD (talk) 01:31, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "All Amazon Prime did was acquire the distribution rights to the series internationally. They had no hand in its creation or production nor any real say in the series in any substantial way." - why, that sounds a lot like the Hulu position on There'sdotdotdotspaceJohnnyexclamationpoint. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * How do you mean? – BoogerD (talk) 01:56, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * All Hulu did was acquire distribution rights. They had no hand in its creation or production nor any real say in the series in any substantial way. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:59, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. I was having a brain fart. I didn't understand what you were getting at until reading it a few times (let's just blame the trippy Kubrick movie...haha). I get the connection you are making but I think there's a fundamental difference between the two series and their distribution though that I don't know you are acknowledging. American Gods was ordered/produced by Starz and aired on that network in its country of origin. Then rights for the series were sold in international markets. So, right, all that's pretty standard for the entertainment/television industry. However, There's...Johnny!'s situation is pretty unique. The network/service that actually ordered/produced it ended up getting shuttered. Therefore, the network/service that created the series didn't air it in its country of origin. That, I think, is rather rare and worthy of noting. The international rights weren't simply sold to various foreign networks (or one streaming service) for international markets as is the common situation. Sorry for being so slow in understanding what you were saying; I promise I'm usually more mentally deft. ;) – BoogerD (talk) 02:22, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "Therefore, the network/service that created the series didn't air it in its country of origin. That, I think, is rather rare and worthy of noting." That fact would seem to be conveyed just as well by my phrasing as by yours. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:30, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I just have to disagree. I think including the extra wording adds needed clarification. It further illustrates the sequence of events that led to its ultimate release. I don't know...I suppose we are just debating our opinions here...I just feel rather strongly about my position.
 * And, BTW, I hope my fervor regarding the editing of this article doesn't lead you to believe that I'm some sort of blowhard or loon. I genuinely want to make this and every other article the best that they can be. I can see that, that is your desire as well and I have great respect for that. I'm just saying this because I usually try and stop in the middle of an ongoing debate on here just to make sure that the other editor and I are on good terms. Anyways, I'd also like to mention that I took a look at your own Wikipedia article. What an interesting career you have had. Maybe one day I'll have the opportunity to read one of your books. – BoogerD (talk) 03:31, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you are neither a loon nor a blowhard. To be honest, however, I am getting the impression that you're someone who, having thought he was writing on a blank topic, put a lot of effort into creating an article... and when you found your error, carried some belief that whatever you did must be superior to whatever existed before. That would be quite understandable when just having invested your effort. And that's not to suggest that you haven't tried to be accommodating, but we all (myself included) also carry our pride with us wherever we go. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:02, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That's good to hear Nat! Sometimes you honestly just do not know as these written messages can't convey tone or inflection. I know I've run into more than a few editors who have taken things personally and made the ability to discuss things untenable. To respond to your above remark: I don't that I'd say I think whatever I wrote is superior. I'm just as intelligent as the next random Wikipedia editor (I hope) and I would never try and come across as some elitist jerk. I think what you are saying about pride is spot on though. I think that those of us who are dedicated to the ongoing Wikipedia project (of which I count you and I among them) would like to believe that we put a lot of time, thought, and effort into every edit we make. That being the case, its almost inevitable that when another disagrees with an edit we've made (whether its regarding content or wording) we will be inclined to defend our work. Having said that, I'd like to think that you and I among those more steadfast editors who don't get turned away by collaborating discussions like these and those who are always open to changing their position, thoughts, or opinions on something when a sound, logical case is presented or convincing evidence is laid out. Let me just say, that I truly appreciate your patience, thoughtful response, and polite and professional demeanor. Its interactions like this, even amidst disagreements, that give me continued faith in this project and keep drawing me back into editing. Sincerely, BoogerD (talk) 19:12, 30 August 2018 (UTC)